User talk:Fergman3001
For Ferguson He likes hearing what people have to say, and often takes their arguments to heart if they make a good case. He's got writing skills, very valuable to the Web 2.0. Against Ferguson His contrarian nature often undermines his usefulness. signing I've noticed that you've taken to signing at the beginning of your posts, instead of at the end like everyone else. Maybe it's just that "contrarian nature" mentioned above, but I feel that it disrupts the flow of a conversation as well as making it difficult to find those points in the edit box to respond. To be honest, it bugs the hell out of me :P. All of the information on signing asks users to sign by appending the four tildes, and under the signed statements proposal, these wouldn't technically qualify as signed statements. Also, if someone made another reply following yours at the same indent level using standard sign-at-the-end behavior, people wouldn't be able to tell where your post ended and the next one began. Any chance you could sign at the end from now on, please? --whosawhatsis? 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :I was just experimenting a little. I found it rather overwhelming under the current system of signed statments. Not necessarily signing at the end, which I will resume doing if otherwise it bugs the hell out of you. But I've started inserting subject lines in bold so it's easier to get a quick lay of the land, instead of having to wade through the seemingly endless amount of text we are able to spew forth. I'll continue with the subject lines in bold, unless that bugs you, too? -- Ferguson 00:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks. The subject lines are nonstandard, but not nearly as disruptive or potentially problematic as the signatures at the beginning. --whosawhatsis? 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :::I gotcha, buddy. Am I the only one who has a tough time making his way through the signed statements? -- Ferguson 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::::It can be difficult when there's a lot of back-and-forth, especially in the edit box, but standardized formatting makes it easier. --whosawhatsis? 01:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) link to talk pages? Why did you put links to the talk pages? They're all blank at the moment. Shouldn't we be linking to the articles? Chadlupkes 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :That's what my original plan was, but since there are no articles and since my original thought was to get separate discussion going for the 'threats' (which are pretty much discussion starters, not really campaigns or anything like that), I thought it'd be better to link to talk pages. That's just what I did, but we can always change it, of course. -- Ferguson 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::Ok. I think we should. Normally, the talk page is for formatting and questions about that page, but the article itself is what is linked on other pages. Someone else might be able to articulate that better.. Chadlupkes 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::All right. I'll change it. -- Ferguson 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I envisioned it as linking to "Forum:________ as a threat to democracy" pages. --whosawhatsis? 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :::::I was thinking about making it a forum thing. I'll go ahead and change that, too. -- Ferguson 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Did you mean to move the pages to the forum instead of creating new ones? Preserving the history would be good. If there are duplicates, please mark them with so they can be tossed. Thanks! Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)